Instigator / Con
3
1493
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Can we win in the climate change battle?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
2
6
Spelling and grammar points
1
3
Conduct points
0
3

With 3 votes and 18 points ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,000
Contender / Pro
21
1736
rating
94
debates
75.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Con
Forfeited
Pro
1. Definition

The "Climate change battle" arguably is a battle that is just named "Climate change" for some reason, and if it is being phrased as a battle, it will be treated as one.

What does "Battle" mean?


People have generally regarded a battle on default as something winnable. If anything, what a term means depends on how people use it, and people use it to represent something with a "winnable" attribute.

No matter what the battle is, against an army or against a gun duelist, the eradication of the other side can be treated as a victory on your side. Such objectives are never impossible(Inter-entity conflicts are never logically contradictory) so winning a battle is always technically possible.

2. Sides

If we are losing a battle, we could just switch to the other side and say we are winning it. Nothing logically forbids us from doing it. If something is losable it is winnable. If Con does not prove that this battle will end a tie, Pro wins.
Round 2
Con
Forfeited
Pro
Full Forfeit, Extend. Vote CON.